Toronto Digital Queeries
Who Cares if Gays Marry?
Apparently, most of the planet. In the “free” world (and those quotation
marks are very intentional) almost all of us agree that discrimination is ugly
and unwanted. Yet, many of us still seem
to feel it’s okay to ban gays from having the right to marry. Why is that?
Opponents claim that gay marriage is against
definition, against God and leads us down a dangerous “slippery slope” into a
bottomless pit from which there is no return. So let’s see if any of that is ultimately true, shall we?
Let’s look at the “definition” argument. This is two–fold. First, proponents of this stance would argue that marriage has
always been defined as being between one man and one woman. This is certainly not true. Many cultures around the globe have
different variations of what constitutes a marriage. Muslim countries of the
Middle East, Asia and North Africa often have accepted polygamous marriages; several central Asian cultures and
others often have accepted polyandrous marriages; even gays and lesbians have
been married in various types of ceremonies around the nation and the
globe. Whether we individually agree or
approve of all of those types of marriage is irrelevant; what matters is that
we must recognize that the definition of marriage has many permutations. Simply put, the word “marriage” in and of itself
is not discriminatory…and neither should we be.
Second, those who would
argue “marriage” by definition is an exclusively heterosexual state of being do
so by declaring that God intended marriage only for the procreation of children. But this proposition immediately proves
fallacious if you look honestly at history.
Marriage actually began and continued for centuries with several
functions: in addition to procreation,
marriage was also used to form and/or affirm alliances, augment familial wealth
and status, and maintain inheritance rights.
It is a fact that children happen with or without marriage; the two are
not necessarily inter-dependant. To
argue that homosexuals do not have the right to marry because the partners
cannot spawn on their own becomes even more invalid when you consider that if
we define “marriage” as only being a right for people who can procreate, then
infertile men and women, those beyond their child-bearing years, and people who
simply choose not to have children should also not be allowed to marry. Thus, the inanity of the argument becomes even
more apparent and unacceptable.
The second main argument those opposing gay marriage make
is that homosexuality is against God.
The credibility of this stance is shattered with two words: “Whose God?” We are being myopic, egocentric exclusionists if we are to only
consider the Judeo-Christian God…or any one God for that matter. What does that say to people living in our
countries who have different religious backgrounds and cultures? That’s not to mention Atheists, Agnostics
and those who don’t necessarily believe in a god at all. It is uncharitable and unforgivable to
impose religious beliefs into the secular arena of the government. Or, more simply put: it is one thing to hold
a religious belief; it is quite another to force it on a country. We aren’t supposed to do that in the “free”
world; that’s part of what makes it “free”.
Finally, there is the “slippery slope” argument: that if we allow gays to marry, soon we’ll
have to accept polygamous marriages, incestuous marriages, marriages with
children, animals, foliage, aliens etc.
I hope I’ve made clear in the previous sentence that anything can have a
“slippery slope” argument hung upon it and the slope can be augmented into
absurdity. To fear such an absurdity
is…well…absurd. In the Unites States,
interracial marriage was legally forbidden for many years. People screamed the “slippery slope” argument
then. Fortunately, legislators didn’t
listen. Not surprising, when that ban
was finally removed, flocks of people wanting to marry their pets, sisters, oak
trees and lawn chairs did not storm the government to demand marriage
rights. It just didn’t happen. And it won’t happen today, either. The “slippery slope” argument is a proven
fallacy. How can any intelligent person
attempt to use it today? (But I may
have answered my own question by including the word “intelligent”.)
In short, marriage in the “free” world today is first
and foremost about love; if two adults love each other and want to create a
stable union, it is not the government’s place to pick and choose between
couples. Whether the license is called
a “marriage” or a “civil union”—both heterosexual and homosexual couples should
have the equal opportunity to enjoy it if they choose.
https://plus.google.com/114046160687387105744/posts
Comments
Post a Comment